Just playing devil's advocate here : I would assume that he was warned more than once by his wife, the child support office, and probably his wife's attorney BEFORE they went to the trouble of taking him to court. Had he paid up prior to being dragged in to court (even though the initial error was not his) there would be no reason for him to pay the attorney's fees. He waited until the court date was set, paid up, and then walked into the court thinking that he was free and clear. Surprise - the lawyers are still getting paid for having to show up.

Not to mention the fact that he walked out on a judge. I don't care who you are. A judge will fark your day up for disrespecting them in their court room. This is not really about a man getting gamed by the child support system. It is more about some dumbass who got dragged to court and then pissed in the judge's corn flakes.

Being in the middle of a divorce and related actions that is nearing two years in duration for a marriage that barely made it past four years in length, and where there was no custody issues, I have learned the following:

1) Judges are lazy and overworked and do not read the pleadings you file before a hearing. Ever.2) Because the judge hasn't read the motion or the response, the party that filed the motion gets to do all the talking in the hearing, because they have to explain the motion, or in some cases, literally read it out loud to the judge. By the time they do that, there's not enough time left for the responding party to plead their side of the case.3) Because the party filing the motion ends up doing all the talking during the hearing, that party usually wins.4) Judges make up their mind on whose fault it was before the first person opens their mouth. In most cases, and especially with a female judge, it's the man's fault. Period.5) The party with more money pays both attorneys, even if the other side is making stupid motions.And 6) Once you enter the legal system, there is no escape. You will be dealing with it for the rest of your life.

My ex-wife literally attached proof she'd committed a felony to a motion she filed against me. When we pointed that out in the hearing, she immediately withdrew the motion. When we asked the judge to address the blatant lawbreaking, she decided it was outside her jurisdiction and did nothing.

They don't care. You just have to walk into that courtroom and figure out how to stroke the judge's ego. That's it. There's nothing more to it than that. Your case will not be evaluated on the facts, merits, or whether anybody followed proper procedure until it reaches the appellate level.

thamike:Vector R: thamike: Walking out when you're pissed off at the Judge will not help you in any way, except grant you a temporary reprieve of being angry. But it'll simply make it harder for your lawyers to get the Judge to reconsider the ruling.

Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look. Of course, the Daily Mail sliced that tidbit out of their almost verbatim reposting of a retarded MyFoxHouston blog piece.

Oh no, she was perfectly able to give the case a closer look, she just chose not to because she's a power-tripping coont. Some of us walk away when we get too emotional, and that's probable exactly what happened. Better to go take a breather than tell the judge exactly how much of a man-hating coont she is.

Yeah, well, that's not how court works. That's not even how elementary school works.

correct. courts and elementary schools absolutely do not operate on logic.

thamike:Walking out when you're pissed off at the Judge will not help you in any way, except grant you a temporary reprieve of being angry. But it'll simply make it harder for your lawyers to get the Judge to reconsider the ruling.

Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look. Of course, the Daily Mail sliced that tidbit out of their almost verbatim reposting of a retarded MyFoxHouston blog piece.

Oh no, she was perfectly able to give the case a closer look, she just chose not to because she's a power-tripping coont. Some of us walk away when we get too emotional, and that's probable exactly what happened. Better to go take a breather than tell the judge exactly how much of a man-hating coont she is.

I'm betting the contempt of court had something to do with it as well.

Frankly, I'd walk out too if somebody told me I'd be forced to pay my ex's legal fees ON TOP of whatever I just recently doled out in child support payments.

Talk about sticking in the wound.

That judge needs to be the one in jail for six months. He paid the child support--it was an admin error. As soon as he knew there was an admin error, he paid... before it went to court. His visitation was changed and he was not notified. I've seen this happen more than once, and not just in Texas. The child's mother pushed this to court, despite having gotten her child support. She needs to pay her own damn lawyer fees and this judge needs to be pulled the hell out of family court--or any court, for that matter. Even the mother's attorney testified twice that the support was paid and that he owed nothing at all. There's some shady, shady shiat going down in this case.

The mother and the judge are crazy biatches. Take the kid away, give him to dad and let mom pay the damn support.

Loren:Joe USer: I'm betting the contempt of court had something to do with it as well.

Yup. I would expect him to end up in jail for walking out like that. You simply do not do that sort of thing.

It does sound like there are some shenanigans going on here, though--two changes he wasn't notified of, and how does a child support change happen without you being aware that it might happen??

You know how I know you've never dealt with the state on child support?

My sister's ex ended up behind on his child support for his second ex because it took the state almost 6 months to inform his employer. And yes, his second ex went after him with a vengeance over it. The state took the amount he was behind away from my sister's kids, then went after him after he was caught up for being in arrears on child support to my sister--a situation which they (the state) caused with their shenanigans.

My sister felt sorry for him cause ex number two was such a biatch and told the state to fark off--she'd handle child support with him personally. He willingly helped out here and there until her kids were 21, and still does occasionally. THis is why, ladies, it pays to not be an absolute raging c*nt to the father of your children.

In particular, the CoC was apparently "for failure to pay child support", and, per the Snopes article:

"(Under Texas law, for an obligor to avoid contempt charges in a child support case, he must be current on all child support obligations at the time of the enforcement hearing, not just those originally pled in the motion to enforce.)"

Theaetetus:patchvonbraun: Indeed my combined support payments were based on a legal fiction--namely, that I was still employed at Nortel, making the low-six-digit income I was making there. But at the time of our separation, I was unemployed, having been disgorged with hundreds of others one fine day in November 2008. But the "legal fiction" was that I was capable of working at a job that paid what Nortel paid me. They paid fairly-far above "scale" for many positions, and I was in one of them. Those jobs simply don't exist any more, and until recently, I was making $45K less than I was at Nortel (that has improved by $10K recently). But, biatch-faced fat coont and her lawyer insist that I "owe" as if I was still working at the much-better job. So, the arrears continue to accrue. I can't afford the $10K it's going to cost to fight this in court, and biatch-face knows this.

So, what exactly do you expect will happen? You lose your job - suffering a drastic change in circumstances - and you expect to sit on your couch until a handwritten letter arrives from the judge, who has used their psychic powers to detect your new lack of employment, excusing you from any child support obligations? Do you really think that the judge takes hours each day to inquire into the current employment status of each and every support payer? Don't you think it might be a weeeeeeee bit easier to contact the court and say "hey, I'm out of work, and I can't make my support payments"? But oh, wait, that might take some effort on your part. Much better to go on Fark and biatch about how unfair the courts are for not magically knowing your entire life story without being told.

And there are such things as volunteer legal counsel for destitute individuals such as yourself. But again, that takes getting off your ass.

Fortunately, I don't have any assets that can be seized, and the FRO (that's another story) doesn't feel inclined to come after me, since I'm covering the child-support portion and *mo ...

The process of putting together a "change of circumstance motion" isn't, actually, as easy as you paint it. I never said I didn't talk to my lawyer. I've spent a *lot* on lawyers during this whole mess. Actually going to court and arguing such a motion (and, it wouldn't be a single visit to the court, it would be several round-trips, because, that's how the system is set up) would cost me more than I can possibly put together. Would it be "worth it"? Yes, I suppose that spending $10K (that I don't have) to have $50-$60K in arrears expunged and monthly payments adjusted would be "worth it", but guys like me are stuck in cash-flow situations where none of the "worth it" math actually applies. I can't get a freebie lawyer because, well, I actually work for living.

I resent being called lazy. I work two jobs just to meet the unreasonable support obligations, and spend lots of time with my kids. But hey, if you want to characterize me, and people like me as "couch surfing assholes", you're entirely free to do that. I just don't think it's a reasonablecharacterization.

omnimancer28:Just playing devil's advocate here : I would assume that he was warned more than once by his wife, the child support office, and probably his wife's attorney BEFORE they went to the trouble of taking him to court.

I see you are completely unfamiliar with how the family court system works.

Here's a simple rule to figure out if you will be farked by the family court system. Do you have a penis?

lack of warmth:There has been some interesting stories involving child support and visitation in MI. MI passed a law ( I don't recall how long ago) allowing non custodial parent to not pay child support for the time spent at their home. As in, if the kid spent the summer with dad, dad didn't pay for the summer. We had some judges didn't hear about the change until the dad was dragged into court for back child support that he didn't owe. The dad (in one case) knew he got a three month discount for the three months the kid was with him, but the judge didn't learn until the heated court proceedings. The dad was probably lucky he didn't go to jail for proving a judge wrong.

In my state (CA) we just pay. I did some off the books deal early in the game and it cost me dearly. They can sign off on child support and let us handle it but at any time can sign back on. That could get ugly. I let the state handle it via payroll deduction. She offered a cash payout for less money towards the end but I refused. Nine more months and I was free. She wanted to start some sort of business and needed the cash. Sorry. Not coming from me. It might have saved me around 5K but I was legal and paying. I looked at is as an investment to myself.

And they don't need to prove it went to the kids. It is just money going down a black hole.

saturn badger:It doesn't really work that way. The visitation orders are for when either party decides they want to ignore them and not allow visitation. Then it is back to court.

I doubt many follow the visitation orders anyway. They are very tight and controlled. This year on this holiday every other year and this weekend and this day. Ugh! They are very strict. After we had the mediation hearing we looked at each other and said fark that. We'll do it our way.

There has been some interesting stories involving child support and visitation in MI. MI passed a law ( I don't recall how long ago) allowing non custodial parent to not pay child support for the time spent at their home. As in, if the kid spent the summer with dad, dad didn't pay for the summer. We had some judges didn't hear about the change until the dad was dragged into court for back child support that he didn't owe. The dad (in one case) knew he got a three month discount for the three months the kid was with him, but the judge didn't learn until the heated court proceedings. The dad was probably lucky he didn't go to jail for proving a judge wrong.

Weatherkiss:The Flexecutioner: thamike: The Flexecutioner: thamike: Vector R: thamike: Walking out when you're pissed off at the Judge will not help you in any way, except grant you a temporary reprieve of being angry. But it'll simply make it harder for your lawyers to get the Judge to reconsider the ruling.

Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look. Of course, the Daily Mail sliced that tidbit out of their almost verbatim reposting of a retarded MyFoxHouston blog piece.

Oh no, she was perfectly able to give the case a closer look, she just chose not to because she's a power-tripping coont. Some of us walk away when we get too emotional, and that's probable exactly what happened. Better to go take a breather than tell the judge exactly how much of a man-hating coont she is.

Yeah, well, that's not how court works. That's not even how elementary school works.

correct. courts and elementary schools absolutely do not operate on logic.

Yes, not being rewarded for storming out of either completely f*cking defies logic.

no, being punished does not equal being rewarded. and no, he did not STORM out. that's just you trying to inflammatorily make your illogical case that he somehow deserves 6 months in jail for bruising her fragile ego.

Whether he saunters out gently and puts on sunglasses while saying, "Deal with it.", or he has a vein bulging out of his forehead and he's ready to rip a phone book in half and storms out -- it's leaving the courtroom without being dismissed.

And yes, it is illegal to do that. It has always been illegal to disrespect the courtroom. Judges are known to power trip, but regardless of what kind of woman this judge is -- what he did would have been met the same way no matter what courtroom he was in. Contempt of court.

In civil society, it's agreed upon that a judge rules the court. This is why judges are elected or appointed by other judges who were elected. Because they ar ...

And a six month sentence for contempt of court is kind of like dropping a bomb on a housing complex because the people won't come out to be arrested.

Weatherkiss:I'm pretty sure his 6 month jail sentence was a result of his contempt of court charge, related to not visiting his son as issued by court order at particular times.

Generally speaking you can't be criminally punished for failing to meet visitation orders -- that's a civil decree. Typically the most extreme judgement possible would be a loss of custody or visitation.

Contempt of court can certainly get in thrown in jail, though it's not clear how 6 months of unemployment will improve this situation. I'm sure the guy with a dick to the judge, but exactly what benefit does his punishment provide society or his son?

Theaetetus:mjbok: Theaetetus: Or the fourth option, an advocate for the court system who won't let people get away with sob stories that are based on a false premise that the court should magically know all the details about your life and fix everything when circumstances changed without ever being notified. Shiat, is that really so tough to understand? Or does saying that you should contact the court rather than expecting them to be omniscient make me an asshole in your world?

Do you not understand that someone (that had been laid off) was saddled with child support based on a 100k a year income?

Do you not understand that someone earning 100k was saddled with child support based on an income of 100k, and that subsequently, they lost their job, but didn't bother telling the court about it?

Do you also not understand that CS is not automatically lowered when the court is notified of a change in income,

Sure, they have to verify that change, and also verify that you're voluntarily avoiding higher paying opportunities in order to stiff your kid.

... and rarely is reduced based on smaller income?

And that's completely incorrect. Unless, of course, you're including in that pool all of the people who never go to court and never ask for it to be reduced in the first place. Because, hoo boy, are there a lot of those idiots.

Do you not understand that the requirements to get child support raised are far fewer than those to get it lowered, if getting it lowered is possible at all? Is that so tough to understand?

"Far fewer" being one less - as noted above, if your income goes down, the court will look to see if you're just trying to stiff your kid. If it goes up, that's moot. But other than that, it's an identical set of factors.

Oh good, the patent attorney that has presumably never been on the receiving end in family court is here to tell us just how easy the system is, if only you'll get off your ass.

Here's how mine went1. Get good job-state files for increase, sends notice by post halfway across the country then halfway across the Pacific to notify me of my right to a hearing if I respond within 10 days of postmark. I receive notice 20 days after postmark

2. CS gets set to new amount because I didn't respond in time, effective retroactive to filing date. Whatever, start paying new amount.

3. Get laid off due to contract change in new fiscal year. Go on unemployment CS is now $200/mo above UE payments

4. Call CS office and Court. Response "FARK YOU PAY US"

5. Mandatory administrative hearing. Provide layoff notice, proof of UI income, statement of assets, and proof of work search showing average of 5 resumes per day across the nation for similar paying jobs. That is 150 per month.

6. FARK YOU PAY US

7. File in court. Refile all paperwork. Wait 6 months

8. Receive notice of hearing with option to appear by phone. Ask for phone hearing so as to not have to travel halfway across country for an hour long hearing

9. FARK YOU GET OUT HERE NEXT WEEK!!

10. Hearing day, prior to court: "Hrm. It seems as though you can only pay $XXX instead of the 4 times that we've been charging you. OK, fine, we'll go with that.

11. Judge: FINE. HERE'S YOUR NEW AMOUNT. BUT FARK YOU, YOU STILL OWE THE BALANCE OF WHAT YOU WERE OVERCHARGED.

System is farked. You have to definitely keep on top of the communication with any child support organization. Also, if he is in jail for non payment, he can't earn money. In CA they will take your licence if you are behind, which hinders most people's ability to work. Also, they withhold your Income Tax refund if they think you owe. The system needs an overhaul.

Theaetetus:You think the court should magically know all of that, without even contacting them once? Is even a single hoop, 20 feet in diameter and sitting on the ground, still too much?

The court did know he was unemployed. The court thought he had the "potential" to make 100k based on previous earnings and CS was set based on that. If the court thinks he should pay x on an income of 0, why would the court reduce CS when the amount being made is actually more than 0.

Trying to figure out if you're a troll, a misandrist, or just a regular asshole

Theaetetus:Don't you think it might be a weeeeeeee bit easier to contact the court and say "hey, I'm out of work, and I can't make my support payments"? But oh, wait, that might take some effort on your part. Much better to go on Fark and biatch about how unfair the courts are for not magically knowing your entire life story without being told.

If only it was that easy. To get support increased is not that difficult. To get it decreased is positively Herculean in comparison.

I have a similar story: I had switched divisions from a labor to a technical position at my job in order to progress further but had to take a temporary 25k/year reduction in pay, (2 steps back to take 10 steps forward if you will). Coincidentally, I had a c/s review during this time. The lady (it wasn't a judge, but the head case worker) had decided I had "under employed" myself to screw up C/s even though I had letters from the company stating this was untrue and would (within 3 years) be earning the same or more money than I was previously. She set my c/s to an amount that pretty much meant I would be in jail for "contempt of court" as I had no way to make the monthly payments. I told her as much. She stated "Mr. kendelrio, you have the potential to pay this much per month". I told her I also had the potential to win 250 million dollars playing the lottery, but I couldn't walk on the car lot and buy a new car with the potentialmoney I was going to win.

Long story longer, I had to hire a lawyer (fortunately he let me make a payment plan) and go in front of a real judge.

The judge reduced it, but it still should never have been that high to begin with.

While we are on the subject, I brought up the state of Louisiana's conflict of interest in the whole deal; She asked what conflict of interest? I stated that Louisiana gets 5% of what they collect as a "processing fee", so the more they collect, the more they get. I asked "Doesn't it take a set amount to process a case? Why the percentage". The answer I got was "You are paying for the ones we can't collect."

I'm not against C/S. I understand it isn't for my ex, but for my kid. I would never want to deny her. In fact, I'm the one who set mine up through the state so it would be automatically deducted. If I never see it, I never miss it. I am,however, tired of the entire process treating men like pieces of shiat by setting it so high that you literally can barely afford to eat.

...

The FRO (Family Responsibility Office) was created here in Ontario about 30 years ago, when some coont convinced the government that "something needs to be done about deadbeat dads". So, they created the FRO, who have ex-judicial powers that would astound. They used some insanely-high numbers to support their claims (60% of dads are dead-beat, or some such nonsense). A study, years later, showed that the numbers they used to create the FRO in the first place were a near-complete fiction. Most of their "dead-beat-dads" were either *actually dead*, or had paid-up and made other other arrangements *years and years* prior, and that in fact, only about 10% are what we'd call "dead-beat".

I was briefly unemployed between a contact terminating abruptly, and the job I currently have (been here for 3 years). During that time, I collected UI benefits, for a grand-total of $1700/month. Half of which was garnished and sent to the ex. The FRO hounded me *weekly*, threatening to take away my drivers license, passport, and ultimately throw me in jail, for failing to pay the $3500.00/month in the original agreement. I asked them how it was they expected me to seek suitable employment without a car (I live in a rural area, as does my ex and the kids), nor how I was expected to make payments from a jail cell. That, apparently, isn't their problem. The "victim" is supposed to blow magic fairy-dust out their ass to make payments, it's not their problem. Oh, the arrears continue to accumulate while you're in jail. Fortunately, I talked to the ex. She had no idea that the FRO were being such assholes to me and, rather out-of-character for her, convinced them to back-off. She must have had a moment of supreme clarity, and realized that she'd be getting nothing if I was in jail.

The FRO here (and, I suspect, in most other places) is a government-sponsored collection of thugs with extra-judicial powers. They need to be scrapped. Read the stories of victims of the FRO (100% of them male) who, having nowhere else to turn, ended their lives after years of harassment, despite good-faith efforts to meet the terms of their support agreements. It's an outrage. Makes me so mad.

I have a similar story: I had switched divisions from a labor to a technical position at my job in order to progress further but had to take a temporary 25k/year reduction in pay, (2 steps back to take 10 steps forward if you will). Coincidentally, I had a c/s review during this time. The lady (it wasn't a judge, but the head case worker) had decided I had "under employed" myself to screw up C/s even though I had letters from the company stating this was untrue and would (within 3 years) be earning the same or more money than I was previously. She set my c/s to an amount that pretty much meant I would be in jail for "contempt of court" as I had no way to make the monthly payments. I told her as much. She stated "Mr. kendelrio, you have the potential to pay this much per month". I told her I also had the potential to win 250 million dollars playing the lottery, but I couldn't walk on the car lot and buy a new car with the potentialmoney I was going to win.

Long story longer, I had to hire a lawyer (fortunately he let me make a payment plan) and go in front of a real judge.

The judge reduced it, but it still should never have been that high to begin with.

While we are on the subject, I brought up the state of Louisiana's conflict of interest in the whole deal; She asked what conflict of interest? I stated that Louisiana gets 5% of what they collect as a "processing fee", so the more they collect, the more they get. I asked "Doesn't it take a set amount to process a case? Why the percentage". The answer I got was "You are paying for the ones we can't collect."

I'm not against C/S. I understand it isn't for my ex, but for my kid. I would never want to deny her. In fact, I'm the one who set mine up through the state so it would be automatically deducted. If I never see it, I never miss it. I am,however, tired of the entire process treating men like pieces of shiat by setting it so high that you literally can barely afford to eat.

I pay 1k a month plus insurances (health, vision and dental) for one child while a female I work with (comparable incomes) who is paying c/s to her ex is paying $75 per kid (three kids).

Watubi:Sounds to me like this guy didn't get the correct amount held out of his paycheck yet he did nothing about it. It may not be his fault, but he is responsible for making sure the correct payments are being made. The mother was not getting her child support so she had to hire a lawyer. Then, knowing there was going to be a hearing, the father suddenly decided to correct the "mistakes". So, yes, he is responsible for paying the mother's lawyer.

But, by all means, continue to think society is anti-male

Can't tell uf your trolling or clueless. You just might be a feminazi as no rational person would ever say that with a straight face unless they were trolling.

saturn badger:mjbok: If that mistake was him over-paying, would he get the money back?

In my state yep. They pulled a months payment that was over the line and I got my money back.

Well, you should consider yourself lucky. In many states if your income goes up your child support will go up retroactively and automatically in many cases. In no states does your child support automatically go down if you lose your job or get a pay cut. You have to file for it (and if you're lucky enough to actually get a reduction approved) there is no way in hell you get back the difference for the months until the change was approved.

Child support is rigged against men, plain and simple. Easy way to prove it: there are multiple instances of men who have proved they are not the father (cue Maury) of a child, but still are required by the courts to pay child support.

Today I taught Farkers that Alimony is not child support, but adult support.

/They are similar though, both can cost you 50% of your yearly pre-tax income as a man.//Better pray to your god your divorce is amicable if you are a man. Prenuptial agreements have already been voided by divorce courts.

I'm fairly certain child support is tax deductible, though alimony is not.

Generally, child support is *not* tax deductible, though spousal support *is*. The theory I guess being that you'd have to pay that money anyway for upkeep of the children, but the ex-biatch is an adult, and *could* work if she'd get off her fat, bonbon-eating ass, and actually *use* the pharmacy tech education you paid for in the year before you split up....wait, I'm drifting of track, where were we?

Oh yes. So, spousal support is tax deductible. Unless there are notional arrears, in which case, spousal isn't tax deductible. If there are notional arrears, then, well, you're farked forever. Or you engage in a long, hard, expensive court process to get them expunged because they weren't legitimate to begin with. Oh fark, I'm drifting off-track again.

/my ex is a fat, lazy biatch. Send her just over 50% of my net income every month. That's not enough, apparently.

This is not a justification for making allimony (legalized theft and extortion) tax deductible. It's a justification for removing the whole concept of alimony altogether.

thamike:Vector R: thamike: Walking out when you're pissed off at the Judge will not help you in any way, except grant you a temporary reprieve of being angry. But it'll simply make it harder for your lawyers to get the Judge to reconsider the ruling.

Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look. Of course, the Daily Mail sliced that tidbit out of their almost verbatim reposting of a retarded MyFoxHouston blog piece.

Oh no, she was perfectly able to give the case a closer look, she just chose not to because she's a power-tripping coont. Some of us walk away when we get too emotional, and that's probable exactly what happened. Better to go take a breather than tell the judge exactly how much of a man-hating coont she is.

Yeah, well, that's not how court works. That's not even how elementary school works.

Tell that to any of the people who sell "anger management" courses these days.Their answer is ALWAYS "retreat".

If you can demonstrate clear bias, you can certainly ask for a new judge. Or is Kentucky more bass-ackwards than it was 23 years ago (which is the last time I set foot in the state, and it was pretty bass-ackwards then)?

You can't demonstrate the bias. That would be like telling a Fox News viewer their favorite station isn't really fair and balanced.

lack of warmth:You got to admit though, not making the other parent child support for extended stays makes sense. The old way made the parent pay twice, child support payments to custodial parent and the actual support of the child during the stay. It almost makes me proud of my state. Now if I could get child support from my stepson's father, I would be right as rain. Canadian prick left the country before the kid was born, with no contact. Irritates me as much as the deadbeat mom's out there not being hunted down by the courts. I have yet to hear of a mom getting busted for back support, when I know of a few who don't pay at all.

It does make sense but that never happened to me. As a working stiff and not having many extended stays it would not have saved me much anyway.

In the end I paid my dues and was able to help raise two wonderful daughters. The big bonus in all this is when it came time for college they were able to use their mothers income to apply for grants. One is on grants now (and also working) and the other, through grants and scholarships, is now on a full paid scholarship in her Ph.D program. It is all legal and on the up and up since they lived with her.

There are benefits to divorce for the kids and dad.

Oh, one more thing... I do get the occasional phone call... dad? I am a bit short this month... so in a way I still pay child support. At least I know where the money goes now. I pay for car insurance for one.

/still paying//they are supposed to take care of me in my old age///so they say

FTFA: "It probably wasn't the smartest thing, but it was a (gut) reaction. I guess you have no freedom of speech with a judge."

Clearly the judge was power-tripping because he didn't take the man's emotions into account.

Well as soon as someone challenged the judge, the sentence was magically commuted and he was released. I think that's a pretty fair case for power-tripping. Appeals court looks like they didn't seem to fond of that ruling either.

So the system works since the appeals court did not re-affirm the judge's ruling.

The system also cost a man 2 days in prison because a judge was being a dickbag. I don't know about you, but I prefer to spend time outside of jail.

FTFA: "It probably wasn't the smartest thing, but it was a (gut) reaction. I guess you have no freedom of speech with a judge."

Clearly the judge was power-tripping because he didn't take the man's emotions into account.

Well as soon as someone challenged the judge, the sentence was magically commuted and he was released. I think that's a pretty fair case for power-tripping. Appeals court looks like they didn't seem to fond of that ruling either.

buzzcut73://State farked up and didn't record some payments that were deducted from your check? FARK YOU, PAY US

I read of some cases where the man got arrested because he didn't make the payments. Even the ex-wife insisted he made the payments on time, but he was still ran through the system and farked over. If you are in a state where the payments are processed through the government system, your life can be farked overly royally because some low-level clerk with a hangover didn't check a box.

omnimancer28:Just playing devil's advocate here : I would assume that he was warned more than once by his wife, the child support office, and probably his wife's attorney BEFORE they went to the trouble of taking him to court. Had he paid up prior to being dragged in to court (even though the initial error was not his) there would be no reason for him to pay the attorney's fees. He waited until the court date was set, paid up, and then walked into the court thinking that he was free and clear. Surprise - the lawyers are still getting paid for having to show up.

Not to mention the fact that he walked out on a judge. I don't care who you are. A judge will fark your day up for disrespecting them in their court room. This is not really about a man getting gamed by the child support system. It is more about some dumbass who got dragged to court and then pissed in the judge's corn flakes.

A judge is supposed to be completely impartial and not have a personal bias, If a judge cannot do that they should be removed from their position.

I'm betting the contempt of court had something to do with it as well.

Frankly, I'd walk out too if somebody told me I'd be forced to pay my ex's legal fees ON TOP of whatever I just recently doled out in child support payments.

Talk about sticking in the wound.

Oh, that's common. My friend has to pay his ex-wife's lawyer fees everytime she throws a temper tantrum. She's 'unemployed' (works for cash) listing only the alimony and child support as her income. He actually hired a detective to follow her, and tried to get discovery for other bank accounts, but the judge denied it.

fluffy2097:OgreMagi: I'm fairly certain child support is tax deductible, though alimony is not

What you pay for both is calculated based off your pre-tax income though. So it's calculated off about 33% more money then you actually ever get in any given year.

Clarification noted. Also, if your income changes, perhaps because the economy sucks and you had to take a lesser paying job, the family court doesn't care that you are now a cashier and not an engineer. Your payments are still going to be based on your "earning potential".

redmid17:Oh wait I was talking about why an ex-wife might have more reason to be bitter than an ex-girlfriend. No one is disputing child support payments here.

I'll bring this up because it seems no one has, but a fair number of women have mentioned to me that when they got divorced they came under an ass load of pressure from their families, in particular their mother to be absolute dicks about everything. And the lawyer I consulted in my divorce said often she gets cases where dear old mom comes to the meetings with the lawyer and bully's her daughter into making a knock down drag out fight of it.

Vector R:Weatherkiss: Vector R: thamike: Walking out when you're pissed off at the Judge will not help you in any way, except grant you a temporary reprieve of being angry. But it'll simply make it harder for your lawyers to get the Judge to reconsider the ruling.

Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look. Of course, the Daily Mail sliced that tidbit out of their almost verbatim reposting of a retarded MyFoxHouston blog piece.

Oh no, she was perfectly able to give the case a closer look, she just chose not to because she's a power-tripping coont. Some of us walk away when we get too emotional, and that's probable exactly what happened. Better to go take a breather than tell the judge exactly how much of a man-hating coont she is.

The courtroom is not your parents' house. You can't just pout and walk away and slam the door when your feels get hurt. The courtroom is an instrument of justice, of civil society. If you disrespect the judge, you disrespect the court, you disrespect the institution the country is founded on. You aren't allowed to take a breather unless the judge says you may. You aren't allowed to go to the bathroom unless the judge allows you to.

The system is not perfect, but it's the best one we have. If someone gets screwed over, the only thing they need to do is sit down and shut the fark up until the gavel is brought down and the judge explicitly says that the case/court is dismissed. Yes, it sucks when you get screwed over by the court. Yes, it's normal to feel angry and enraged.

But no, it's not 'better' to go take a breather. He should have put his big boy pants on and waited patiently and calmly to avoid invoking the judge's ire.

That's how civil society works. If you can't be an adult, you get punished like a child.

I beg to differ. He wasn't in state custody, and if he needs to go use the bathroom ( a common excuse to go cool off, coincidentally), he sure as shiat can go. I' ...

Weatherkiss:Vector R: thamike: Walking out when you're pissed off at the Judge will not help you in any way, except grant you a temporary reprieve of being angry. But it'll simply make it harder for your lawyers to get the Judge to reconsider the ruling.

Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look. Of course, the Daily Mail sliced that tidbit out of their almost verbatim reposting of a retarded MyFoxHouston blog piece.

Oh no, she was perfectly able to give the case a closer look, she just chose not to because she's a power-tripping coont. Some of us walk away when we get too emotional, and that's probable exactly what happened. Better to go take a breather than tell the judge exactly how much of a man-hating coont she is.

The courtroom is not your parents' house. You can't just pout and walk away and slam the door when your feels get hurt. The courtroom is an instrument of justice, of civil society. If you disrespect the judge, you disrespect the court, you disrespect the institution the country is founded on. You aren't allowed to take a breather unless the judge says you may. You aren't allowed to go to the bathroom unless the judge allows you to.

The system is not perfect, but it's the best one we have. If someone gets screwed over, the only thing they need to do is sit down and shut the fark up until the gavel is brought down and the judge explicitly says that the case/court is dismissed. Yes, it sucks when you get screwed over by the court. Yes, it's normal to feel angry and enraged.

But no, it's not 'better' to go take a breather. He should have put his big boy pants on and waited patiently and calmly to avoid invoking the judge's ire.

That's how civil society works. If you can't be an adult, you get punished like a child.

I beg to differ. He wasn't in state custody, and if he needs to go use the bathroom ( a common excuse to go cool off, coincidentally), he sure as shiat can go. I'm sure even a convict in shackles could be escorted to the bathroom.

Weatherkiss:The courtroom is not your parents' house. You can't just pout and walk away and slam the door when your feels get hurt. The courtroom is an instrument of justice, of civil society. If you disrespect the judge, you disrespect the court, you disrespect the institution the country is founded on. You aren't allowed to take a breather unless the judge says you may. You aren't allowed to go to the bathroom unless the judge allows you to.

The system is not perfect, but it's the best one we have. If someone gets screwed over, the only thing they need to do is sit down and shut the fark up until the gavel is brought down and the judge explicitly says that the case/court is dismissed. Yes, it sucks when you get screwed over by the court. Yes, it's normal to feel angry and enraged.

But no, it's not 'better' to go take a breather. He should have put his big boy pants on and waited patiently and calmly to avoid invoking the judge's ire.

That's how civil society works. If you can't be an adult, you get punished like a child.

Authoritarianism is a form of government. It is characterized by absolute or blind obedience to authority, as against individual freedom and related to the expectation of unquestioning obedience. You know, like when the Nazis and the Communists killed all of those people.

Weatherkiss:Luse: And for some reason young men are increasingly shunning marriage.

It's a good thing young men don't engage in pre-marital sex that could result in the conception of a child. That whole 'no marriage' thing is a foolproof method of avoiding a situation like this man is in.

I'm pretty sure his 6 month jail sentence was a result of his contempt of court charge, related to not visiting his son as issued by court order at particular times. Whether he was not 'told' about any of this, as he claims is dubious. He's not going to admit he knew and simply did not comply. It's easier to say he was never told to begin with.

But he's on appeal, so even though the court system is claimed to have 'broken down', and the Daily Fail is obviously trying to work the 'miscarriage of justice' angle on this -- the court system is working as intended.

Of course walking out on a judge in her courtroom when issued a contempt of court charge isn't going to win him any favors.

But sure, let's go with the "he's brown in Texas, therefore the system is stacked against him" defense. When it's pretty obvious there's way more to the story than the article lets on.

Weatherkiss:Luse: And for some reason young men are increasingly shunning marriage.

It's a good thing young men don't engage in pre-marital sex that could result in the conception of a child. That whole 'no marriage' thing is a foolproof method of avoiding a situation like this man is in.

I'm pretty sure his 6 month jail sentence was a result of his contempt of court charge, related to not visiting his son as issued by court order at particular times. Whether he was not 'told' about any of this, as he claims is dubious. He's not going to admit he knew and simply did not comply. It's easier to say he was never told to begin with.

But he's on appeal, so even though the court system is claimed to have 'broken down', and the Daily Fail is obviously trying to work the 'miscarriage of justice' angle on this -- the court system is working as intended.

Of course walking out on a judge in her courtroom when issued a contempt of court charge isn't going to win him any favors.

But sure, let's go with the "he's brown in Texas, therefore the system is stacked against him" defense. When it's pretty obvious there's way more to the story than the article lets on.

Well put. Unfortunately we'll still get people complaining about misandry, their idea of feminism, and just how hard is to be a man.

Weatherkiss:Except noone dies, no property is destroyed, and the only financial loss is from court fees and the lack of income while imprisoned.

Good luck thinking he'll be able to pay when he gets out, as his job is likely gone. He'll be lucky to not be homeless.

I imagine the hearing went something like a Judge Judy episode, judge making decisions based on clean cut mannerisms as oppose to facts and reasoning. It does seem odd to go through a hearing when the matter is already settled. Why was the court hearing still held, and why did the ex even need a lawyer anyway? Isn't these kind of cases treated somewhat like a criminal case where prosecutors are used?

thamike:The Flexecutioner: thamike: Vector R: thamike: Walking out when you're pissed off at the Judge will not help you in any way, except grant you a temporary reprieve of being angry. But it'll simply make it harder for your lawyers to get the Judge to reconsider the ruling.

Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look. Of course, the Daily Mail sliced that tidbit out of their almost verbatim reposting of a retarded MyFoxHouston blog piece.

Oh no, she was perfectly able to give the case a closer look, she just chose not to because she's a power-tripping coont. Some of us walk away when we get too emotional, and that's probable exactly what happened. Better to go take a breather than tell the judge exactly how much of a man-hating coont she is.

Yeah, well, that's not how court works. That's not even how elementary school works.

correct. courts and elementary schools absolutely do not operate on logic.

Yes, not being rewarded for storming out of either completely f*cking defies logic.

no, being punished does not equal being rewarded. and no, he did not STORM out. that's just you trying to inflammatorily make your illogical case that he somehow deserves 6 months in jail for bruising her fragile ego.

Aigoo:TheEdibleSnuggie: Joe USer: gja: His fault for being male/and brown in Texas

I'm betting the contempt of court had something to do with it as well.

Frankly, I'd walk out too if somebody told me I'd be forced to pay my ex's legal fees ON TOP of whatever I just recently doled out in child support payments.

Talk about sticking in the wound.

That judge needs to be the one in jail for six months. He paid the child support--it was an admin error. As soon as he knew there was an admin error, he paid... before it went to court. His visitation was changed and he was not notified. I've seen this happen more than once, and not just in Texas. The child's mother pushed this to court, despite having gotten her child support. She needs to pay her own damn lawyer fees and this judge needs to be pulled the hell out of family court--or any court, for that matter. Even the mother's attorney testified twice that the support was paid and that he owed nothing at all. There's some shady, shady shiat going down in this case.

The mother and the judge are crazy biatches. Take the kid away, give him to dad and let mom pay the damn support.

THAT. A man who wants to be a real father and take responsibility is something to be cherished, not penalized because the judge is petty and his ex is probably some psycho coont out to get him for deciding the relationship wasn't going to work out.

In particular, the CoC was apparently "for failure to pay child support", and, per the Snopes article:

"(Under Texas law, for an obligor to avoid contempt charges in a child support case, he must be current on all child support obligations at the time of the enforcement hearing, not just those originally pled in the motion to enforce.)"

Funny, the article says he was paid up:

Clifford Hall's child support payments are all caught up - he even paid back $3,000 that he says were inadvertently withheld from his ex-wife by his employer prior to the hearing

If some judge held me in Contempt for not paying something I had already paid, I'd feel tempted to walk out of her courtroom, too.

In particular, the CoC was apparently "for failure to pay child support", and, per the Snopes article:

"(Under Texas law, for an obligor to avoid contempt charges in a child support case, he must be current on all child support obligations at the time of the enforcement hearing, not just those originally pled in the motion to enforce.)"

Still confused... I didn't get the impression that he'd overpaid at all, just that he'd paid the amount owing. Which even Snopes says he had before going to court.

So, if the amount owing is paid in full--which, the reports indicate, and Snopes indicate it was, and the child's mother's attorney testified twice that there was no amount of child support in arrears and Hall was completely current in child support--the contempt charge still doesn't hold water coontil he walked out on the judge, at which point a new contempt charge is completely valid... but six months? There are teenaged rapists doing barely more than that in jail. Come the fark on!)

Weatherkiss:And regardless of what you're charged with/convicted on/whatever, you never walk out on a judge in the middle of a hearing. That's not just a social faux pas, it's another count of contempt of court. You never piss off or disrespect the judge no matter how badly you get screwed. Appeals, new trials, etc. are all part of the system and are there to help people who were wrongly convicted, discriminated against, etc., but that's for later, when emotions are cool and your lawyer(s) can work out a strategy.

Walking out when you're pissed off at the Judge will not help you in any way, except grant you a temporary reprieve of being angry. But it'll simply make it harder for your lawyers to get the Judge to reconsider the ruling.

Well, with a guy named Quarnell X in his corner, maybe he was getting advice that made walking out on the judge seem like a good plan.

On the bright side, Quarnell X now has more 'whitey holding us down' and 'one more reason to ditch your slave name' ammo for his community activism.

See kids, this is why you go gay. In most states you still can't get married so no chance of a costly divorce, and you can't impregnate someone of the same sex so no possibility of having to pay child support.

Weatherkiss:thamike: TheEdibleSnuggie: Frankly, I'd walk out too if somebody told me I'd be forced to pay my ex's legal fees ON TOP of whatever I just recently doled out in child support payments.

He walked out because he was found in contempt of court. He was found in contempt for not following court ordered visitation times. He didn't follow court ordered visitation times because he "didn't know" about them.

And regardless of what you're charged with/convicted on/whatever, you never walk out on a judge in the middle of a hearing. That's not just a social faux pas, it's another count of contempt of court. You never piss off or disrespect the judge no matter how badly you get screwed. Appeals, new trials, etc. are all part of the system and are there to help people who were wrongly convicted, discriminated against, etc., but that's for later, when emotions are cool and your lawyer(s) can work out a strategy.

Walking out when you're pissed off at the Judge will not help you in any way, except grant you a temporary reprieve of being angry. But it'll simply make it harder for your lawyers to get the Judge to reconsider the ruling.

Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look. Of course, the Daily Mail sliced that tidbit out of their almost verbatim reposting of a retarded MyFoxHouston blog piece.

TheEdibleSnuggie:Frankly, I'd walk out too if somebody told me I'd be forced to pay my ex's legal fees ON TOP of whatever I just recently doled out in child support payments.

He walked out because he was found in contempt of court. He was found in contempt for not following court ordered visitation times. He didn't follow court ordered visitation times because he "didn't know" about them.

Luse:And for some reason young men are increasingly shunning marriage.

It's a good thing young men don't engage in pre-marital sex that could result in the conception of a child. That whole 'no marriage' thing is a foolproof method of avoiding a situation like this man is in.

I'm pretty sure his 6 month jail sentence was a result of his contempt of court charge, related to not visiting his son as issued by court order at particular times. Whether he was not 'told' about any of this, as he claims is dubious. He's not going to admit he knew and simply did not comply. It's easier to say he was never told to begin with.

But he's on appeal, so even though the court system is claimed to have 'broken down', and the Daily Fail is obviously trying to work the 'miscarriage of justice' angle on this -- the court system is working as intended.

Of course walking out on a judge in her courtroom when issued a contempt of court charge isn't going to win him any favors.

But sure, let's go with the "he's brown in Texas, therefore the system is stacked against him" defense. When it's pretty obvious there's way more to the story than the article lets on.